Debate Over B-2 Bomber

* Robert Scheer’s one-sided bashing of the B-2 bomber (Column Left, July 11) and its supporters in the House of Representatives (219 to 203 during a recent vote) is fundamentally flawed, and so full of Cold War rhetoric that it deserves a straightforward response.

Scheer would have you believe that the B-2 was designed solely for fighting a nuclear war. That is an error of fact. From its very beginning, the B-2’s mission statement stipulated conventional as well as nuclear weapons capabilities. The large conventional bomb-carrying capability of the B-2, coupled with its long range and inherent stealth survivability, is why this aircraft has so many supporters in Congress.

It might be of interest to your readers to know what other defense experts think about the B-2. In a recent article, retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner wrote: “As the former air commander of the Desert Shield-Desert Storm Air Forces, I feel a duty to put the B-2 debate in perspective, and sound a warning on any recommendation to stop production of this aircraft. To put it bluntly, halting this nation’s B-2 production capability is dangerously shortsighted and would lead ultimately to the extinction of the long-range bomber force, at the very time when bombers are emerging as America’s most critical 21st Century military asset.”

In a letter to President Clinton, seven former secretaries of defense from both parties urged him to build more B-2s. Each of these men shares the burden of having sent young American men and women into combat. They wrote the B-2 “remains the most cost-effective means of rapidly projecting force over great distances.”

Finally, it is worth noting that the B-2, which Scheer describes as “this weapon from hell,” was actually designed and built in California by thousands of hard-working people who are proud to be a part of strengthening America’s defense.

JAMES G. ROCHE

Corporate Vice President

Advanced Development and Planning

Northrop Grumman, Los Angeles

* Even the Pentagon says we don’t need new B-2 bombers, Scheer says. Indeed, it is pitiful that the House of Representatives chooses to gut social programs and to spend on ridiculous, outdated, expensive items such as B-2 bombers.

The government could use the money to extend unemployment insurance and to retrain defense workers who had been making such bombers.

And, as Scheer says,”There are plenty of government projects that would both create jobs and produce something needed, like schools or child-are centers.”

The B-2 bomber is a waste. The American people should not be fooled into allowing it to be made.

JEAN MICHENER NICHOLSON

Altadena